A lot of people seem to find Kerry’s manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing.
After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but…that’s how intelligent people talk. Carol Kalish spoke much the same way.
See, many people just say whatever’s running through their mind, and the phrases often don’t parse as sentences. Just ask anyone who’s ever had to transcribe an interview. In such case, more often than not, a sentence begins in one place but doesn’t end where it should because the speaker has gone off track.
Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences. When he’s pausing, he’s mentally constructing what he’s going to say so that it will track from beginning to end. He considers his words and then uses them. By contrast, Bush just flails. He starts sentences without a clue where he’s going with them, and oftentimes trails off into confusion or dead ends. What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.
PAD
• 
“You guys don’t understand: Part of me is really hoping Bush is reelected.
Why? Because, without exception, every second term presidency in the past fifty years has become overwhelmed by scandal, misdeeds and wrongdoing on every level. Right now Bush still has defenders. If history holds–and considering the multiple debacles already in progress–a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel. Granted, there won’t be much left of the country, but hopefully the Democrats following him can rebuild.
Second term of Bush: Bring it on.
PAD”
Peter, you’re a great guy and all but isn’t it about time to take a step back and rethink just how consumi8ng this Bush Bashing is becoming? A part of you hopes Bush gets reelected so that he can scfrew things up so badly that everyone will have to admit that you were right about him all along???
Why is that imporatnt to you?
If he gets reelected and things go great are you going to feel badly about yourself? You’re settting up a no-win proposition–Bush wins and things are terrible (I know you love your kids so that CAN’T be a good scenario) or Bush wins and you have to pretend that things are worse than they are. Misery either way.
Or Kerry wins and you have to hope he is a better president than presidential candidate.
Ruling from the judges…?
Over on Peter’s blog, topic titled PeterDavid.net: Bush vs. Kerry someone in the comments thread has mentioned Hitler. My question: as a moderator, should I shut down the comment thread now that Godwin’s Law has been violated?…
Let me state up front that I haven’t read any of the other posts because I didn’t feel like wading through 102 of them, but I just had to respond to what Peter said.
I voted for Bush in 2000. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said, “You can fool some of the people some of the time…” Well, I was fooled. It won’t happen again. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Now, as to what Peter said, I think people will not be looking at what was said now with a jaundiced eye. I think people will look at George Bush’s statements and says, “So what?” I think communication, especially thoughtful communication, is going the way of the dodo. Thirty years from now and even more into the future, communication, in general, will degrade to the point where everyone will be communicating like George Bush. As a matter of fact, I was in the English department of a school (I’m a subsitute teacher) where a similar subject came up. We were bemoaning some of the grammar errors kids still make in high school, and one of the teachers made the point that she thinks that the apostrophe will have died off in a hundred years. Noone will use it anymore. Language changes. The degradation is happening now. I’ve read student papers where they’ve used “u” for you and b/c for because. With the Internet and instantaneous communication, people don’t put as much thought into their communication anymore. So, in 30 years, everyone will be communicating like W. Hopefully, I’ll be deaf or in an asylum by then and I won’t have to experience it.
By the way, I watched that press conference he did a few weeks back, and I wanted to see it turn into an episode of MASH. When a reported asked a good question, W. never really answered it. He would ramble and stammer and never really say anything. It was like the MASH where Hawkeye and Trapper try to get an incubator for the 4077. They go to a press conference staged by a general, and Hawkeye asks him about the incubators. He gives a BS answer and asks Trapper if he has a question. Trapper says, “Yes, why don’t you answer his question?” I wanted to see a reporter do that at the press conference so badly! Oh, well.
It
So how would you have handled retaliation for 9/11?
Um … NOT by invading a country that had jack to do with it while claiming otherwise.
Do let’s remember that Osama hated Saddam, and that not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi or connected to Saddam.
Your question is a good one. I’d request that you answer it yourself before using it to challenge others.
TWL
If he gets reelected and things go great are you going to feel badly about yourself?
I’m not Peter, but I’ll answer this.
The only way in which that scenario would make me feel badly about myself is that I’d wonder how I could have misjudged Bush’s presidency so badly. I wouldn’t regret the improvement in the nation’s fortunes.
Based on the evidence to date, however, I think that scenario is vastly unlikely, and expect the allegedly liberal media to claim otherwise. Bush could bomb San Francisco in an anti-gay marriage initiative, leave the city a crater, and the White House press release would be titled “Bush Unveils Bold New Initiative To Reduce Bay Area Population Density”. 75% of the newspapers would print it verbatim, maybe including one quote from a disgruntled survivor of the explosion countered by someone saying he/she was just angry and didn’t get the big picture.
If Bush is reelected, there’s at least a 50-50 chance that we’re leaving the country and not coming back. I really and truly do not want my daughter to grow up in Bush’s America, and am prepared to take substantial steps to avoid it. That includes voting, donating as much money as a teacher in a high cost-of-living area can afford to various causes, and looking into alternatives should he manage to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
You asked.
TWL
So, Tim, one out of your four answers had anything to do with Bush and that had him stating his reason for making a decision that was supposed to be based on the morality of the research citing where is morals come from.
And in no case is him stating something that has been stated by prior presidents can this be seen as establishing a national religion.
If you can view it as such, than your bias is dictating your rational.
where is morals come from
Should be:
where his morals come from.
>Saying that Bush is a blight could make them feel stupid for voting for him–and no one wants to think they are stupid. Problem is–I don’t know how one can dish on Bush without making his supporters feel stupid. (Gordon)
If that’s what it takes, maybe it can work, but only if they can learn from their mistakes. A friend admitted he had proudly voted for a former Prime Minister years back. However, media and opposition working hard to show that Prime Minister as an arrogant crook eventually caused my friend to re-examine his position, as well as the politician’s record, and made him realize he’d made a mistake and changed his voting pattern accordingly.
>”when all is said and done, history is going to judge this presidency very harshly, and yet the occupants of the Oval Office seem blithely unaware of this.” (Joe)
You work on the assumption that they CARE one way of another. But, by then, their friends will have made their fortunes (Haliburton, anyone?) and rewarded them when the curtains comes down on their political careers. Mulroney may be the most despised politician in Canada’s history, but he could care less what with all the big salaries he’s being paid while sitting on the boards of American companies he helped through the free trade ‘deal’ he rammed through while he was Canada’s P.M.
>So far, however, the “ABB” reason is all I hear Democrats bandy about (Anyone But Bush). That just doesn’t cut it with THIS independent voter. (Russ)
Sadly, you have a point. I’m scared of the Opposition (having seen the damages their earlier incarnation wrought to the country while they were in power from ’84 to ’93) and won’t vote for them, but I despise the current administration and it will take more than their fear-mongering vis the Opposition to get me to vote for the incumbents, either. So where does this leave me if there is no Independent candidate in my riding come the next election?
>I only hope that at some point the trend will reverse itself and people will become more literate and more articulate in the years to come. (Rick)
Dream on. I spend some time as one of the ‘operators’ in an Internet chat channel on Japan. What I see there in terms of people trying to express their thoughts, or just having light-hearted conversations simply depresses me. Fair enough those for whom the English language is not their native tongue but how to explain that, frequently, they use it more effectively, not to mention correctly, than those for whom it is?
>You basicly just said the American People don’t like smart people (Surges)
And how is that inaccurate, exactly?
It is to cry when I consider such spectacularly well-written [and thus scarce] programs as MURDER ONE which wind up a hollow shell of their former selves because the suits insist on changes which dumb down the program to suit the American audiece. Or the difficulty in getting such excellent, well thought out programs as BABYLON 5 on the air because, goodness gracious me! People might actually have to PAY ATTENTION and THINK about what they’re seeing. Or, even worse, such garbage as PAYNE, a third-rate American copy of the terrific British FAWLTY TOWERS. When TOWERS creator Cleese saw a script for PAYNE, he tore it to shreds, pointing out how it ignored all the elements which had made his series so good. Hollywood’s response? “He doesn’t understand. We don’t have the luxury of working under the same tv system he did when he made FAWLTY. We simply can’t do it the same way.” It never seemed to occur to these idiots that they then shouldn’t bother trying. Predictably (to anyone with a functional brain), PAYNE died after a few episodes, in spite of the efforts of talented John Laroquette’s starring role. Even he couldn’t salvage the dumbed-down, insipid American version.
And don’t hold your breath for North American TV to come out with anything nearly as hilariously clever as Britain’s YES, MINISTER any time soon. Not when the audiences here crave the pre-digested pap of FRIENDS and other such crap.
>I think the nation as a whole lacks vision. (PAD)
Bingo. This is what you get when, using Canada as an example, one has businessmen and lawyers running (ruining?) the country, instead of statesmen and other people of vision.
Ken,
What exactly is your “stating something that has been stated by prior presidents” phrase referring to?
And I disagree that only one of four has to do with Bush.
1) Bush is Boykin’s boss, and said general wasn’t disciplined or demoted despite the diplomatic and constitutional damage inherent in his speeches.
2) Bush has the biggest bully pulpit on the planet given his office. If he felt it was inappropriate for the US media to be raising that question (essentially a religious litmus test for candidates), he could certainly say so. He has not.
3) Bush has explicitly said that he feels “the jury is still out on evolution” and has supported the creationists’ challenges to school boards.
That’s not establishing a national religion, no, but it’s sure as hëll letting religious bias dictate policy — which, last time I checked, is exactly what the pesky Constitution he goes on about was trying to prevent.
And if you want another reason, here it is. This is an excerpt from an article in Haaretz last summer:
Minutes from private meetings President Bush held last week in the Middle East quote Bush as saying, “God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”
Bush states quite explicitly here that the reason America is at war is because God told him to do it . Care to explain that?
TWL
James wrote:
“I can’t stand Bush. That moron has done more harm then good to this country then any of the presidents before him. He lies, can’t speak English, has pìššëd øff almost every allies we ever had, enraged the Arabs, tossed away BILLIONS in surplus to replace it with BILLIONS in debt, invade a poorly defended nation, ignored a hostile North Korea, gave tax cuts to the rich and lets special interest run his national policy.”
“The man (cough cough) should be tried for crimes against humanity, and jail for the rest of his life. He makes me ashamed to be an American.”
So Bush is horrible because he “can’t speak English?” Well, James, let’s review:
“…more harm ‘then’ good to this country ‘then’ any of the…” — that’s “than”, not “then”;
“…pìššëd øff every “allies’..” — that’s “ally”, singular, if you use the word every;
In one sentence (“He lies…”) you used at least three verb tenses, one of which was plural rather than the appropriate singular;
“…should be … ‘jail’ for the rest of his life” — that’s “jailed”
James, I’m not trying to pick on you for your incorrect grammar. Instead, I’m using you as an example to make two points: (1.) people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones about other people’s grammar, and (2.) it is a fallacy to attacking someone’s ideas on the basis of that person not having effective public speaking or grammar skills.
James, your ideas are no less valid because you could have phrased them better (in fact, I agree with a couple of them, despite the fact that I generally support the President in this election). The same, however, applies to President Bush. To suggest that he and/or people who support him are less intelligent than Kerry and his supporters, based solely on Bush’s grammatical skills, is faulty logic and, in my opinion, has no place in a serious debate about such serious issues.
“If France disapproves of the United States defending herself and killing terrorists, I
First off, I am a Christian and am currently reading book nine of THE LEFT BEHIND SERIES. I find the series to be very interesting and compelling to read even though I am not exactly a big supporter of the Book of Revelations.
Anyway, from reading THE LEFT BEHIND SERIES, I see a strong comparison between the Antichrist and Bush. It is scary.
D’you know how we could settle this once and for all? This Bush vs Kerry thing?
Celebrity… no! PRESIDENTIAL DEATHMATCH!
Get that show back on the air MTV!
🙂
Perfect!
I had just received a HUMOR column written by Doug Robarchek of the Charlotte Observer in the mail and I was wondering how/where I could post this on Peter’s blog (hoping EVERYONE would get a kick out of it).
I think this is a great spot:
“The Repulicans said what would happen if Al Gore won the 2000 election:
1) We would go to war.
2) The national debt would soar.
3) The economy would tank.
4) The stock market would plunge.
5) Unemployment would be rampant.
6) The U.S. dollar would quickly decline in value.
7) We would have a huge budget deficit.
Well, sure enough, they were right. Gore won. and all those things have happened.”
Enjoy!
“Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.”
Nah. Thirty years from now, even if Iraq winds up being a disaster in its long run, we’ll be divided between people who think it was a deeply immoral and shameful war and people who think that the only shame in it was how President Hillary/President Frist wound up cutting and running roundabouts 2010 or so. Heck, they probably won’t have settled on which of the analagous views on Vietnam is right by then…
Now, future generations will probably look back with revulsion on early 21th century policies on Gay Marriage, but they’ll more likely associate all that with the late 20th and think of Lawrence V Texas as the beginning of enlightenment.
Bruno wrote:
Hoo boy. My friends, my liberal friends…do you remember the Clinton haters? The wingnuts? The Black helicopter crowd? The ones who thought that Clinton murdered bunches of people so he could run drugs from the Red Chinese to score illegal donations to the communist party…etc etc?
Remember how dopey they looked? Remember the big laughs you had at their expence?
“Bush is the antichrist” “Bush is evil” “Bush is a nazi”
Guess who’s laughing now?
Certainly not us living under this religio-fascist jáçkášš Bush….
And Tim, I hope if Bush wins you reconsider. Anyway, what country can you go to where you would have any guarantee that some other guy or gal you didn’t like might get elected? Unless you go to some one party state place but lets face it, with your opinionated nature they’d be breaking down the doors within the week.
Bill:
>>Hoo boy. My friends, my liberal friends…do you remember the Clinton haters? The wingnuts? The Black helicopter crowd? The ones who thought that Clinton murdered bunches of people so he could run drugs from the Red Chinese to score illegal donations to the communist party…etc etc?
Remember how dopey they looked? Remember the big laughs you had at their expence?
“Bush is the antichrist” “Bush is evil” “Bush is a nazi”
Guess who’s laughing now?
While the paranoid and delusional descriptions you utilize to show anti-Clinton people in a similar ligt to “Liberals” bashing Bush’s policies might otherwise appear effective, the comparison doesn’t quite fit in my eyes. The formerare over-the-top and largely unfounded, while the latter has much documented proof, inconsistancies, and new info appearing every day to make it at least a likely possibility.
If someone has taken the time to look at facts to back up their beliefs and educate themselves, I’ll very rarely laugh.
Tim,
I’m sorry you hate Bush so much you are thinking about leaving if he wins. I really am. I’m not even going to make an argument here. You are obviously passionate about what you believe, and are usually rational and inteligent in debating those with whom you disagree. for those reasons alone, you are unique and it would be a shame to see you leave.
That’s all I wanted to say for now. Your statement, and the vile nature of many of the comments on this thread, has killed any desire I might have had to say anything further, at least today.
Well, PAD, I guess despite all my years of graduate and post graduate work at the college level, I must not be too intelligent then. I talk (and often times write – online at least) more in the manner that Bush does than Kerry. You know PAD, while I respect and enjoy your work in the comics field, you’re no better than Rush or O’Reilly or any of the others in the right/far right. The straws you are grasping at are getting farther from you. Why don’t you just do one more post on the matter – get everything off your chest about Bush, etc. – we can all respond and move on. We get you, ok.
And as far as your last comment about our children’s children wonder how we could have allowed this (Bush) to be – I was thinking more might ask the same of Clinton. Who knows, maybe they’ll look at the whole past 12 years with disbelief.
> Logically, what group in the United States has more money than any other group? People over 65! So why do we need to take my money and give it to seniors in the form of free prescriptions and medical? (Jerry)
As my mother (who definitely falls under the age category) points out, that’s not necessarily true of all elderly, and even so, they paid into the tax system all their lives. Why should they have bothered if, when they need to get something back from it, they’re being ignored?
> Hitler started by declaring his steps were neccessary too… (Bladestar)
I didn’t want to make the comparison with him or some other dictator as it tends to turn people off very quickly, but it IS true that he didn’t start out the way he ended up. Little steps, little steps …
> I knew the definition of arrogant, and intentional or not, the implication of your remark is that you are one of the “people who are smarter than they.” and by that token, smarter than most Bush supporters. I would call that arrogant. (Ken)
Half of humanity is below median in intelligence. And median is not terribly high to begin with. I have no problem in believing someone, whose writing is as clever and imaginative as Mr. David’s consistently shows itslef to be, is above that in intellect and knowledge.
> The only thing I can be sure of thirty years from now is that the Democrats will still be blaming Ralph Nader for Bush’s rise to power instead of their own ineptitude. (Dave)
I will admit that, given how many people supposedly loathe Bush Jr, it is baffling that the Democrats are having such a hard time coming up with someone competent and charismatic enough to mop up the electoral floor with him. I’m not sure I’d vote for such a disorganized and ineffectual group. Remind me again who the third parties are? *sigh*
OK, I don’t live in the U.S. so I couldn’t vote anyway. But it’s still depressing.
PAD,
You can tell a person’s argument is devoid of merit when it becomes ad hominem. Sad to say, that is the case with your posting on Bush. Whenever I read somebody criticizing someone else as an idiot, my immediate reaction is that an educated intelligent person would not make that kind of comment. No offense, as I love your writing and think you are a very talented person, but what is your education? What qualifies you to launch frankly ad hominem arguments against Bush? I can understand your posting comments on your blog in a mood of frustration, but calling someone an idiot is hardly a reasoned comment.
Kerry seems fake when he talks. Bush seems real. The commercial with Kerry double talking to the Veterans seems to stick in my mind.
The recent photos don’t give me a good feeling but I think as interrogation methods go nudity and humiliation beat torture anyday. To bad the US pow’s in Iraq were not treated so well.
I think we all want Iraq fixed quickly but I wonder how long it took to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII. I know that we occupied them for quite some time but know little else. Would these give us some benchmarks to temper our expectations.
I think the worst part of the whole thing is that in the future we are going to find out that most of Iraq’s weapons were moved to neighboring countries and the dangers are just next door. Seems like the terrorists they caught entering Iraq recently with the chemical weapons must have gotten them from somewhere.
I wish we had a Regan but between Bush and Kerry I still think Bush is my choice.
I wonder how different the world would be today if we would have accepted Osama when he was offered to us in the mid 90’s.
I’m not super intelligent so please forgive my poor writing style incomplete thoughts and bad spelling.
Peter your great!
Will: “I voted for Bush in 2000. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said, ‘You can fool some of the people some of the time…’ Well, I was fooled. It won’t happen again. “
To give you some perspective, here’s a similar quote from George W. Bush in 2001: “You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on.”
And Tim, I hope if Bush wins you reconsider.
I hope we can safely make it a moot point … but thank you. As I said above, it’s certainly not a definite choice yet — among other things, both of us are quite fond of our current jobs and would have to put that into the mix.
Anyway, what country can you go to where you would have any guarantee that some other guy or gal you didn’t like might get elected?
I think you misunderstand just slightly.
I’ve had plenty of experience with people I didn’t like in charge. I didn’t particularly like Reagan or Bush (and rather suspect I’d have really detested Nixon were I old enough to really remember his presidency). I strongly disliked Al D’Amato during a period when he was one of my senators, and did the Xander happy-dance years later when my once-fellow New Yorkers voted him out. I wasn’t especially enchanted with Pete Wilson as governor during eight of the years I’ve lived in California, and certainly didn’t like the idea of Schwarzenegger as governor. (I will admit, though, that so far he seems to be turning out kinda sorta okay.)
I’m fine with disagreement. I’m even fine with having people I don’t particularly like in charge. That’s part of the process, and changes over time.
The problem is not that I dislike the current administration. The problem at this point is that I fear it.
We’ve got John Ashcroft, who IMO shows no sign of seeing a civil liberty he likes. We’ve got Tom DeLay, who has explicitly said he considers himself in power “to promote a Biblical worldview.” We’ve got the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Perle PNAC affiliates trying to impose a Pax Americana on the planet, even if it means parsing the definition of the word “torture” in a way that would make Bill Clinton go “whoa, dudes, that’s just not cool.” We’ve got an EPA which is toothless, a secretary of education who hates teachers (“terrorist organization”, anyone?), and a president who thinks all of this is just fine because the people with him “share a love of Jesus.” They reject data which does not fit their worldview, dismiss all opposing opinions as “political” if not outright disloyal, and with every statement make it quite clear that whatever the subject, they know all they need to know and don’t need to hear anything else.
To quote (possibly in error) Joe “Robbie” Robertson back in the Lee/Romita era, “God save us from those who know all they need to know … about anything.”
Now, Bush coming to power in 2000 — fine. It was a close race, he campaigned (falsely, it turns out) as a moderate, Gore was inept, and we ran into a grey-area vote we hadn’t seen in over a century. I get that.
If the electorate returns Bush to office after seeing the last four years, however, my only realistic conclusion given the evidence will be that this country and I have reached a parting of the ways. Given the percentage of people in this country who buy into creationism, perhaps that’s no surprise — but it will mean that my family will have to do a lot of soul-searching.
It’s not a decision I look forward to, and I would frankly very much appreciate it if anyone still on the fence would save me the trouble and not vote for Bush. (Of course, the odds of anyone still on the fence having made it this far down the thread seem awfully slim…)
Sorry for the length.
TWL
Bryans: “Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner….
‘It depends on what your definition of “is” is.’
Yep, Just Like Clinton>>
Perhaps Clinton was wondering if he should “is” the correct way, or the way George W. Bush uses it when he says things like “Is our children learning?”
And hey … Peter, if you’re still reading down this far, I’m looking forward to the next Cowboy Pete. Having just watched last night’s “Angel”, I need something new to rant about :-), and Lisa’s and my reactions to it were so clear-cut that we’re both very curious to see what other folks are thinkin’.
TWL
If history holds–and considering the multiple debacles already in progress–a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel.
The second term of our last President involved an impeachment trial due to perjury, and his supporters didn’t give up. Do you think Republicans are less stubborn than Democrats?
PAD wrote: “Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.”
No, historians 30 years hence will marvel how the two largest political parties in the United States could not find a candidate who was appealling to a majority of Americans for both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
And the 1992 election. And the 1996 election. Clinton had only a plurality in his first term and a bare 50% share of the popular vote when he was reelected. With the possible exception of Newt Gingrich (think about that one) nobody’s had a popular majority since Bush Sr. There may be one this year, depending on how much of a pull Nader has, but I think you’re probably right that there won’t be a majority candidate until at least 2008, 20 years after the previous one.
“If France disapproves of the United States defending herself and killing terrorists, I
TWL: I’m also looking forward to the Cowboy Pete analysis of last night’s “Angel.” If your and Lisa’s clear-cut reactions to the episode include the phrase “it sucked” we might be in agreement on something for the first time ever.
On an unrelated note, given the grammarian theme of this discussion, I’d like to confess to the typo in my last post (“has progress” rather than “has progressed”). I apologize.
Luigi Novi: Well, so much for that “no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric” resolution from a while back. 🙂
Peter David: As I recall, I simply said we would endeavor to be civil to one another. I have been, despite the endeavors by others to try and recharacterize my comments into the most insulting form possible. I think saying, “If you don’t want to come across as an idiot, you might want to reconsider the tactic” was pretty civil.
Luigi Novi: I agree.
I wasn’t talking to you.
Putting aside the smiley that I included at the end of that statement, Peter, the comment was meant to address the blog denizens as a group. Although there was one or two posts that prompted that comment, yours wasn’t one of them.
What will it take to get some of you to stop blindly following this administration? They have lied to us to get our cooperation to go to war. They have taken money we need for schools, roads, public safety, etc., and allowed the wealthy in this country to keep money that they should willingly give in taxes to improve a country that has given them their wealth and comfortable life, while driving the deficit up to outrageous proportions . They use junk science to prop up their own arguments about the environment so there can be more profit to the companies that can’t bother to worry about the state of the earth for future generations. They have used corporate officers to make our energy policy. Can anyone say conflict of interest? They have alienated much of the world against us. Some of you even admit all of these things, but still think they should stay in power. Stop listening to the propaganda, and start looking at the facts. They best thing that could happen in this upcoming election is that people become informed about what is really going on, instead of worrying about distractions like military service, or lack thereof, 40 years ago. Can Kerry lead this country out of it’s current mess? I don’t know. I believe (and hope)he won’t continue this trend of trashing what I believe this country used to stand for. Do I think he is the best candidate? I truly think the best candidates are putting their energy into solutions other than political. Anyone with any sense would not want to go through a smear campaign, which is what all of our elections have degenerated into.
Interesting to note the current crop of campaign ads even though the campaign isn’t “officially” under way.
Kerry’s ads focus on his past, his accomplishments, and his visions for the future (whether you agree with them or not). Bush isn’t even mentioned.
In contrast, Bush’s ads are a total attack on Kerry’s record (whether you believe them literally or not). So maybe Bush’s camp is worried.
The best thing Kerry can do for himself is either: A)pick Edwards as a running mate, or, if he’s really radical and can get him to agree to it,
B) pick McCain! Now THAT would be something, and who knows? America might get some real leadership for a change!
Oh yes, and on that last point, get the DNC and the rest of his campaign organizers to agree to it as well.
“When he’s pausing, he’s mentally constructing what he’s going to say” – PAD
No, he’s mentally constructing a lie. The man may be more articulate, but what good is it when you can’t trust a word he says. Everyone wants to say Bush is a liar(Hëll, check out all the recent book titles) but do you really think a career politician like Kerry doesn’t lie through his teeth? The man is just a smooth talker who follows the polls just like Clinton did. You really don’t know if he is coming or going.
Here, check out these quotes on Iraq:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, 10/9/02
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America
David:
>All wars have innocent deaths. It’s inevitable. The unique thing about Western civilization is that we at least make an attempt to minimize those deaths. Compare the way the Iraq war was fought to the Eighth Air Force’s carpet bombing of Nazi Germany. The real American way of war is to bomb the snot out of our opponents and then send in ground troops to overrun the shell-shocked bad guys, and as technology has progress we’ve gotten much better at keeping civilians out of it. “Much better” is still far less than perfect, unfortunately. But I have no problem with every single member of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Quaeda being slain.
Be that as it may, the estimated Cilivian dead in Iraq ranges from 10,918 to approximately 13,000, depending on which source you choose to believe. These are soldiers carrying guns, extremists with bombs, etc. Regardless of whether one is for or against this occupation, if that number doesn’t give you pause to reflect on what is going on over there, than chances are that little else will.
I’m not sure that much has changed for the common person over there since Hussein was taken out, but I’d be very interested in seeing estimated numbers of those that that Saddam and his own soldiers had taken out in the year previous. (Before ayone throws it out, I am glad Hussein is out of power and realize that he was a tyrrant. I simply wonder about what other options were open to or considered by the U.S. government, since they felt the need to take him out.)
“Whenever I read somebody criticizing someone else as an idiot, my immediate reaction is that an educated intelligent person would not make that kind of comment.”
Then your immediate reaction is misplaced. I would recommend you pick up a copy of “Fighting Words,” a collection edited by James Charlton that consists of nothing but the greatest writers and thinkers in history, back to Aristotle, trashing-talking others of the greatest writers and thinkers in history. One may be educated and intelligent, but first and foremost is a “person,” and if that person feels an intellectually stunted, duplicitous, and manipulating individual in the Oval Office is best described as “idiot,” then that’s the word to use. And that’s if for no other reason than that his apparent belief that attacking a country with no clue what to do once we’re done bombing them is somehow a spiffy idea.
“I’m a uniter, not a divider.” He’s united the world against us and even further polarized the American electorate, and still can’t put his finger on something he might have done wrong. Yes, I think “idiot” covers it.
And by the way, just for the record…I don’t think of myself as especially smart. I think of myself as having average intelligence at best, and believe me, I’ve got the grades to back that up. The vast majority of my friends and associates are smarter, cleverer, better educated than I, starting with my wife. So when I’m saying that many Americans resent people who are smarter than they, I wasn’t lumping myself in with the latter group, except to say that I don’t share that resentment. Instead I’m someone who’s dumb enough to think that the President of the United States *should* be the guy who was the smartest kid in the class…not the guy people feel the least threatened by because they figure they’re going to be watching him on TV and are conditioned through years of sitcoms to want someone they’ll feel comfy cozy with while knocking back a brew.
PAD
“If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don’t vote for me.” — John Kerry, Jan 2004
So let me understand this:
John Kerry, over the previous three years, believes the lies of George W. Bush, believes Colin Powell, believes the people who sold him and the rest of the country a bill of goods. And when the magnitude of the lies and duplicity become evident…when Bush now declares that the absence of WMDs really “doesn’t matter”–Kerry turns around and says that he would never do the same thing…that he would never go to war the way Bush did, by lying to the American people, our allies and the world and sending in ground troops who are desperately fighting for their lives while engaging in nation building endeavors that they’re wholly untrained for…
And you think something is wrong with KERRY?
No wonder Kerry has an uphill climb.
PAD
Please excuse my grammer and improper use of language. I went to a good school.
I still don’t understand people’s blinding hatred for the French. It makes no sense if one considers that we would likely not be a nation today without their support.
On Bush and Iraq…
take a look at the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the current abuses that have been going on in the prisons our military currently controls. Bush has said many times since the scandal broke that torture is not the American way. That this is a blemish to our country. (which is in all respects true.) These are certainly not his beleifs, nor the beleifs of his cabinet. The military has TRAINED specialists in the art of interrogation. Almost none of these have been called to Iraq or Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay. Instead we have hired private professional interogators at immense costs (Salary is $10,000+ a month), while our trained soldeirs would cost far far less. Why do we hire these people then? Because as private companies these people are not bound by the same laws our military would be. They are capable and allowed to perform torture on suspects in the name of the United States. These people are paid to do this with our tax dollars. An expenditure that has to be approved by Rummsfeild and Bush. A vote for Bush says its okay to torture suspected terrorists and other prisoners. ITs a lie straight to our faces.
Jerry Smith:
You are right, English is not my first language. So please everywone excuse me if my spelling or expressions are not as correct as they should
You are right. All wars kill a lot of people. But maybe war wouldn’t kill so many people if people like Bush (not only him) made any effort trying to avoid war…but that’s the way it is, so…
Bush is not guilty for Madrid. Aznar would be more guilty for the terrorist atack than Bush. I don’t say that they are the “phisical” responsables for the death of the victims. But I also think that their way of doing things makes easier this things to happen. Aznar ignored 90% of spanish population and he went to war…and now we have the results..
Everyone wants to stop terrorism, I know that. Nobody wants to live with fear. But the world is not black and white. Stop saying “with or against me” (that sounds pretty dictatorial). Stop putting the “terrorist” label in everything you (I mean Bush and others) dislike.
Actually now in Spain there is a Socialist Goverment. Not comunist. I think democracy is the best option. I wouldn’t want anithing instead of it. But the game has becomed too dark, too many interests. In Spain all the partys say that they love democracy and all. But the PP(Aznar’s partido popular)ignored lots of people’s rights “defending democracy” and for example going to war. As I said: Liars.
David Bjorlin:
“Are you blaming Bush for fighting terrorists, or are you blaming him for not getting them all yet? Or for stirring up the hornet’s nest, causing the terrorists to select targets other than Americans?”
No, I’m not saying that. I CARE about american’s life. I call Bush and Aznar liars. When US went to war for the chemical weapons and get Saddam I didn’t like the way things were going to be made. But I said to myself “all right, if they find weapons and all maybe that will be fine”. Now: Saddam out, no weapons. And your goverment says that “maybe their info about the weapons was not that good”. Liars again.
And now that’s very important: Al Quaeda DID NOT make a goverment shift in Spain. Spanish people did. People were fed up of war even before going to it. Spanish people didn’t want our soldiers to go to Irak. But the goverment ignored that. And now lots of people have died, and yes: Aznar is guilty for that.
The people with their right to vote did the change. Do not say Alquaeda did.
Finished for now.
P.D: Where in this forums could I talk about PAD’s comics and all? Make questions and that stuff…I would feel weird asking things like that here.
Posted by CO:
“A vote for Bush says its okay to torture suspected terrorists and other prisoners. ITs a lie straight to our faces.”
Unless you think stripping someone naked is torture, can you explain how Bush says it is “okay” to torture prisoners? If you want to understand torture, read about how Saddam Hussein treated his prisoners. That should give you some perspective.
Jerry:
>>Unless you think stripping someone naked is torture, can you explain how Bush says it is “okay” to torture prisoners? If you want to understand torture, read about how Saddam Hussein treated his prisoners. That should give you some perspective.
I don’t disagree with you on your point, however, being sexualy humiliated and disgraced in front of your countrymen falls lower on the list than physical torture for many of the Middle Eastern people involved. Read up on that culture and you will come to realize that these photos may prove far worse and more damaging in our relations with the world than one would originally think.
eClark wrote: “Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it’s occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!”
As Tim Lynch (no relation) pointed out, people don’t want Bush to apologize for those things.
Amazing. I post something that’s obviously no more than a sarcastic rant, and the Lynch “brothers” think I’m serious. And Tim even backtracked on the polar ice caps!
Sometimes life is just way too amusing!
Say, isn’t time for another Cowboy Pete Round up? I wanna hear what PAD thought about Angel and Smallville.
oops…. add to my above-mentioned point the fact that a handful of these photos show female soldiers grinning and openly mocking the nude prisoners and stir slowly…. quite a soup being brewed in the mindset of a traditional Muslim or even most men in our culture, unfortunately.